International Journal of Pedagogics
106
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
106-112
10.37547/ijp/Volume05Issue06-30
Cross-Linguistic Paradigms: A Typological Investigation of
Grammatical Paradigms in World Languages
Ziyoyeva Dilnoza Anvarovna
ESP Teacher, Bukhara State Medical Institute, named after Abu Ali ibn Sina, Bukhara, Uzbekistan
Received:
14 April 2025;
Accepted:
10 May 2025;
Published:
12 June 2025
Abstract:
Performative verbs have unique characteristics that distinguish them from other types of verbs. They
are powerful tools for expressing intentions, attitudes, and beliefs, creating social realities, shaping relationships,
and asserting authority in communication. By understanding and using performative verbs effectively, speakers
can enhance their communication skills and achieve their communicative goals more successfully.
Keywords:
Illocutionary verb, narrative sentence, performative verbs, connotations and associations.
Introduction:
In linguistics, the term paradigm refers to
a set of related forms or patterns that share a common
grammatical function. It often pertains to how words
change form based on tense, number, gender, case, or
other grammatical categories. For example, in English,
the verb "to be" has different forms (am, is, are, was,
were) that constitute a paradigm for that verb.
The inconsistency in definitions arises because
"paradigm" is used in various subfields of linguistics,
and its meaning can evolve depending on the
theoretical framework being applied. Here are a few
contexts in which the term is used:
Morphology
: In morphology, a paradigm refers
specifically to the complete set of inflected forms of a
word. For example, the paradigm of the noun "child"
includes "child," "children," "child's," and "children's."
Syntax
: In syntax, paradigms can refer to sets of
grammatical structures that function similarly in
sentence formation, such as verb conjugation patterns
across different subjects.
Sociolinguistics
: The term may also be applied to
describe broader patterns in language use within
different communities or social groups.
Theoretical Frameworks
: Different linguistic theories,
such as generative grammar or functional grammar,
may have their own specific interpretations of what
constitutes a paradigm.
This variability in usage leads to the lack of a single,
universally accepted definition for "paradigm" in
linguistics. To understand its meaning in a specific
context, it's important to consider the particular
linguistic framework or area of study being discussed.
Most dictionaries will provide a definition but some
may not be too helpful due to space constraint.
I’ll attempt to illustrate it in the way I and my
colleagues/peers etc, use the concept.
The sun, moon and all the stars revolve around the
world.
(This
paradigm
explains
cosmological
relationships.)
The world revolves around the sun, the moon around
the world, the solar system around the galaxy centre
etc, etc. (Same objects but different paradigm.)
The world and universe are shared imaginary concepts
- only consciousness is real. (An idealistic
epistemological paradigm - and may embrace one,
both or neither of the above.)
A
paradigm
is
a
way
of
looking
at
something/everything. Usually, (but not always)
paradigms are based on sensory input and logic or
assumption. For example: The sun looks as if it is going
round the Earth:
therefore that must be the case as I have no
contradictory data.
At the moment most people believe in the scientific
way of looking at cosmology - it is supported by more
evidence which has been rigorously tested.
International Journal of Pedagogics
107
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
Freud’s hypothetical ‘I saw a man with green hair
hurting other people (and therefore) people with green
hair are brutal,’ at a pinch could be considered a
paradigm as there could be considered a scrap of
evidence, but we’re more comfortable with paradigms
which have been rigorously tested like the theory of
special relativity.
Thus; theories, politics and religions etc, offer
paradigms. Often; belief, paradigm and point of view
can be considered interchangeable.
A paradigm is a notion in grammar and lexicology, and
paradigmatics is a branch of either which studies
paradigmatic relationships between grammar forms or
between words.
In grammar, a word can have several forms. A noun has
different forms of case and number in many languages:
child - children (singular vs plural number), a dog - a
dog's (tail) (nominative vs possessive case). Verbs have
forms of tense, voice, mood, person and number.
These forms are termed opposed, as a context defines
which is possible to use and which is not, and with a
change in context should be replaced and by which
another form:
Now I am writing.
Yesterday I was writing.
That's paradigmatics in grammar, where a paradigm
can be viewed as a table of grammar forms for a part of
speech or its subgroup.
I write.
He writes.
In lexis, we find oppositions of synonyms, antonyms,
homonyms, false cognates etc.
A stylistically neutral word will be proper for a neutral
text, a slang word in an informal text and a bookish in a
law. All three can make a paradigm of stylistic
synonyms sharing notional meaning (big, huge,
spacious).
Antonyms are also words of one and the same part of
speech differing only in one semantic component: big
and small.
Paradigmatics studies here conditions of choosing the
right word or phrase
1.
Introduction
to
Grammatical
Paradigms
Grammatical paradigms refer to sets of word forms
that represent a specific grammatical category, such as
tense, number, case, gender, etc. In languages,
paradigms are used to express variations in meaning
and function of a word depending on its grammatical
context. For example, in English, the verb "run" has the
paradigm forms "run," "ran," and "running,"
representing present, past, and continuous tenses.
2. Typological Approaches to Grammatical Paradigms
Typological linguistics aims to classify languages based
on their shared features and grammatical structures.
The study of grammatical paradigms from a typological
perspective investigates how different languages
structure their paradigms and the underlying patterns.
Inflectional Paradigms: In languages with inflection, a
single word may have multiple forms based on
grammatical features (e.g., tense, case, aspect). Latin,
for instance, has rich inflectional paradigms for nouns,
verbs, and adjectives.
Agglutinative Languages
: Languages like Turkish or
Finnish use affixes (suffixes or prefixes) to mark
grammatical relationships. These languages often have
more regular paradigms with fewer exceptions.
Fusional Languages
: Spanish and Russian, for example,
are fusional, where a single affix may express multiple
grammatical features (like gender, case, and number in
a single suffix).
Isolating Languages
: In languages like Mandarin, word
forms do not change much (e.g., no verb conjugation),
and grammatical relationships are often expressed
through word order and particles instead.
3. The Role of Cross-Linguistic Comparison
A cross-
linguistic typological investigation of paradigms
explores how different languages handle grammatical
categories and how paradigms are structured across
different linguistic families. This comparative analysis
helps to identify universal features of grammar and
language-specific innovations.
For instance:
How do languages with rich morphology (like Russian)
differ from those with relatively simple morphology
(like Chinese)?
What are the different strategies languages use to mark
tense, aspect, and mood?
How do languages vary in their treatment of
grammatical gender, case marking, and number
agreement?
4. Universal Features in Grammatical Paradigms
While
languages exhibit considerable diversity in their
grammatical paradigms, linguists have identified
certain universal features:
Argument Structure
: Many languages have paradigms
that mark subject-object distinctions, even if they do so
in different ways (e.g., case marking, word order).
Voice and Valency
: Paradigms can also reflect
information about the valency of a verb (e.g., transitive
vs. intransitive verbs).
Polysynthesis
: Some languages, particularly in the
Americas (e.g., Inuit languages), have highly synthetic
International Journal of Pedagogics
108
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
paradigms, where multiple elements of meaning are
combined into a single word.
5. Methodology for Typological Investigation
Typological studies of grammatical paradigms typically
involve:
Data Collection
: Gathering data from a variety of
languages to observe the distribution and forms of
grammatical paradigms.
Cross-Linguistic Comparison
: Analyzing and comparing
paradigms across languages to identify patterns,
shared features, and language-specific innovations.
Feature Correlation
: Identifying correlations between
specific grammatical features, such as tense, aspect,
mood, and their forms in the paradigms of various
languages.
6. Challenges in Cross-Linguistic Typological Studies
Language Diversity
: The vast number of languages and
the diversity of their structures present challenges in
categorizing and comparing grammatical paradigms.
Data Availability
: Some languages may not have well-
documented paradigms, especially if they are under-
researched or endangered.
Typological Limitations
: There is no single typological
classification that can capture all the nuances of
grammatical paradigms in every language.
7. Conclusion
Cross-linguistic investigations of
grammatical paradigms provide valuable insights into
the ways languages structure their grammar and the
underlying cognitive processes involved. The study of
paradigms reveals not only typological diversity but
also universal principles that govern human language.
This line of research can contribute to our
understanding of language evolution, language
universals, and the cognitive mechanisms behind
grammatical structure.
In the 70s, when the theory of performance was of
interest to linguists and its active development began,
a debate arose about the status of the verb "speak".
Yu.D. Apresyan uses a detailed and expanded
nomenclature of speech acts. Its basic thesis is the
thesis of the priority of the performative formula over
the performative verb. That is, the meaning of the
verb's performativity is determined by its use,
performative context, therefore, the main properties
of performative verbs are motivated by the primary
properties of performative statements: shortness,
equivalence to action, intentionality, uniqueness, etc.
He also claims that the verb “speak” is not purely
performative, and in a sentence such as “I say that he
is mistaken”, he performs an anaphoric function, refers
to what has been said before this act of speech.
"Typically, a verb is considered performative if it is
possible for it to use the singular form 1 person of the
present tense of the active voice of an indicator, which
is equivalent to a single execution of the action
indicated by this verb."
VV Bogdanov believes that the performative verb
“speak” c
an be conditioned by a number of its
pragmatic, semantic and syntactic features, namely: a)
performative must satisfy the condition of sincerity of
the speaker.
This means that the speaker should not pretend or act
out the listener; b) performative cannot be true or
false, it can only be successful or unsuccessful; c) as a
performative verb of speech activity is usually used
with the meaning of the question, affirmation,
motivation, promise, guarantee, apology, etc .; d)
performative cannot contain negative or modal words;
e) performative is usually expressed in the present
tense, 1 person, singular, indicative.
However, as noted by Z. Wendler, the verb “speak” also
has a “weaker” meaning: you can “speak” individual
words,
sentences,
nonsense,
tongue
twister,
meaningless syllables, and so on, without performing
any illocutionary acts. But in this case, the answer to
the question What did he say? there will be a repetition
of the spoken text - word by word or, possibly,
phonemic. Meanwhile, if in the question, what did he
say? the verb “say” is understood in a general perfor
-
mative sense, the answer will usually be an indirect
transmission of direct speech, in which it is always
possible, and often even required, to change the
vocabulary and syntax of the reproduced statement. So
it turns out that the “speaking” of something in the
strong sense of the word implies the possibility of
indirect reproduction of what has been said.
It is significant that the class of performativities should
not be mixed with the class of perlocutionary verbs. For
example, compare the distinction between the
illocutionary verbs argue “defend the point of view”
and warn “warn” and the perlocutionary verb
“persuade” and deter “hold”.
The first two are pure verbs of speaking, that is, they
serve to describe what the speaker is doing, and the use
of the second two verbs implies a situation in which the
listener takes part. You can defend a point of view, but
not convince the audience; you can warn a person not
to do something, and not to keep him from acting.
Based on the foregoing, Z. Wendler argues that the
perlocutionary aspect is not included in the circle of
performative verbs at all.
METHODS
In our research, we will concentrate solely on linguistic
International Journal of Pedagogics
109
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
units that carry distinct meanings determined by the
cultural code to which they pertain. The primary
materials used in studying performative verbs include
linguistic corpora, discourse analysis tools, and
experimental methodologies. Linguistic corpora
provide a rich source of natural language data for
identifying performative verbs and analyzing their
usage patterns. Discourse analysis tools, such as
software programs for text analysis and annotation,
help researchers uncover the performative functions of
speech verbs in different contexts. Experimental
methodologies, such as controlled experiments and
surveys, allow researchers to investigate the effects of
performative verbs on communication outcomes.
Researchers studying performative verbs typically
employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative
methods to analyze their characteristics. Qualitative
methods involve detailed examination of linguistic data
to identify performative verbs, categorize their
functions, and explore their pragmatic implications.
Quantitative methods, such as statistical analysis and
computational modeling, help researchers quantify the
frequency and distribution of performative verbs in
different linguistic contexts. One common method
used in studying performative verbs is discourse
analysis, which involves examining the use of speech
verbs in natural language interactions to uncover their
performative functions. Researchers analyze the
context, speaker intentions, and listener responses to
understand how performative verbs shape social
realities and relationships. Experimental methods, such
as role-playing scenarios and survey studies, allow
researchers to manipulate variables related to
performative verbs and observe their effects on
communication outcomes.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Our analysis of linguistic corpora revealed a diverse
range of performative verbs used in natural language
interactions. Common examples include "promise,"
"apologize," "declare," and "warn." These verbs not
only describe actions but also have the power to enact
those actions in the speech act itself. Quantitative
analysis of performative verbs showed that they play a
significant role in shaping social realities and
relationships. We found that performative verbs are
used more frequently in contexts where speaker
intentions and listener responses are crucial for
successful communication outcomes. This suggests
that performative verbs are strategic tools for
conveying intentions, emotions, and social roles in
discourse. The results of our study highlight the
performative nature of speech verbs and their impact
on communication dynamics. Performative verbs not
only convey information but also perform social
actions, such as making requests, expressing emotions,
and establishing relationships. Understanding the
performative characteristics of speech verbs is
essential for effective communication and social
interaction.
One key implication of our findings is the importance of
context in interpreting performative verbs. The same
verb, such as "promise," can have different pragmatic
functions depending on the situational context and
speaker intentions. For example, a promise made in a
formal setting may carry more weight than a promise
made casually among friends. Future research could
explore the role of performative verbs in cross-cultural
communication
and
how
different
linguistic
communities use performative verbs to achieve
communicative goals. By further investigating the
materials and methods used in studying performative
verbs, researchers can continue to deepen our
understanding of these unique linguistic phenomena
and their implications for social interaction. The study
of performative verbs requires a multidisciplinary
approach that combines linguistic analysis, discourse
studies, and experimental methodologies. By
examining the materials and methods used in studying
performative verbs, researchers can gain insights into
their unique characteristics, pragmatic functions, and
social implications. Understanding the performative
nature of speech verbs is essential for enhancing
communication skills, building rapport, and navigating
social interactions effectively. In generative grammar,
any utterance containing an illocutionary verb is
considered performative. According to the so-called
performative hypothesis put forward by J. Ross, the
deep structure of any narrative sentence contains the
performative formula "I tell you that ...". "All
declarative sentences occurring in contexts where first
person pronouns can appear derive from deep
structures containing one and only one superordinate
performative clause whose main verb is a verb of
saying". In this regard, the verb "speak" is given the
status of performative.
In the 70s, when the theory of performance was of
interest to linguists and its active development began,
a debate arose about the status of the verb "speak".
Yu.D. Apresyan uses a detailed and expanded
nomenclature of speech acts. Its basic thesis is the
thesis of the priority of the performative formula over
the performative verb. That is, the meaning of the
verb's performativity is determined by its use,
performative context, therefore, the main properties
of performative verbs are motivated by the primary
properties of performative statements: shortness,
equivalence to action, intentionality, uniqueness, etc.
International Journal of Pedagogics
110
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
He also claims that the
verb “speak” is not purely
performative, and in a sentence such as “I say that he
is mistaken”, he performs an anaphoric function, refers
to what has been said before this act of speech.
"Typically, a verb is considered performative if it is
possible for it to use the singular form 1 person of the
present tense of the active voice of an indicator, which
is equivalent to a single execution of the action
indicated by this verb."
VV Bogdanov believes that the performative verb
“speak” can be
conditioned by a number of its
pragmatic, semantic and syntactic features, namely: a)
performative must satisfy the condition of sincerity of
the speaker.
This means that the speaker should not pretend or act
out the listener; b) performative cannot be true or
false, it can only be successful or unsuccessful; c) as a
performative verb of speech activity is usually used
with the meaning of the question, affirmation,
motivation, promise, guarantee, apology, etc .; d)
performative cannot contain negative or modal words;
e) performative is usually expressed in the present
tense, 1 person, singular, indicative.
However, as noted by Z. Wendler, the verb “speak” also
has a “weaker” meaning: you can “speak” individual
words,
sentences,
nonsense,
tongue
twister,
meaningless syllables, and so on, without performing
any illocutionary acts. But in this case, the answer to
the question What did he say? there will be a repetition
of the spoken text - word by word or, possibly,
phonemic. Meanwhile, if in the question, what did he
say? the verb “say” is understood in a general perfor
-
mative sense, the answer will usually be an indirect
transmission of direct speech, in which it is always
possible, and often even required, to change the
vocabulary and syntax of the reproduced statement. So
it turns out that the “speaking” of something in the
strong sense of the word implies the possibility of
indirect reproduction of what has been said.
It is significant that the class of performativities should
not be mixed with the class of perlocutionary verbs. For
example, compare the distinction between the
illocutionary verbs argue “defend the point of view”
and warn “warn” and the perlocutionary verb
“persuade” and deter “hold”.
The first two are pure verbs of speaking, that is, they
serve to describe what the speaker is doing, and the use
of the second two verbs implies a situation in which the
listener takes part. You can defend a point of view, but
not convince the audience; you can warn a person not
to do something, and not to keep him from acting.
Based on the foregoing, Z. Wendler argues that the
perlocutionary aspect is not included in the circle of
performative verbs at all.
Nevertheless, the verb "speak", focusing on the need
to find a modus, does not strictly determine the
accuracy, rigor and other characteristics that carry
various actions. It is interesting to note that such
relatively stylistically neutral verbs, such as to affirm,
predict, warn, are uncharacteristic for colloquial
speech, although the meaning conveyed by them is also
necessary for expression in colloquial speech. In this
case, the verb “speak” is also used in colloquial speech
with circumstances such as accurate, clear and direct.
The construction I definitely say in the position of the
modus does not mean the accuracy of the linguistic
design of thought, but has a modal meaning, which can
be roughly formulated as follows: I guarantee that the
subsequent proposition is true, and therefore modal
constructions with the mentioned circumstantial words
are as close as possible to constructions with
performative verbs.
The performative verb to speak (say) is considered to
be a universal verb of speech, neutral with respect to
the content of speech acts.
As noted N.D. Arutyunova, she really can precede direct
speech regardless of its meaning and purpose and has
few restrictions on the introduction of indirect speech.
However, it becomes sensitive to the content of the
statement when it is replaced by a classifier. The verb
speak is combined with the words of a general truthful
assessment (tell the truth, untruth, lie), but it does not
connect with such obvious classifiers of truth and
falsehood as fact, error, error. The author focuses on
the fact that the verb speak is primarily addressed to
the word and words.
In speaking, a person pronounces words collected in
phrases. “Wherever an object can be translated into
the language of words, the verb is used to say: speak
pleasant words (compliments), speak unpleasant
words (filth, rudeness, etc.), speak meaningless words
(nonsense, rubbish, nonsense, nonsense, absurdity),
speak silly words (nonsense), speak witty words
(pungent, joking).” Thus, the performative forms a
statement whose utterance is equivalent to the
completion of an action to which this statement refers.
Performative enters the context of life events, creating
a social, communicative or interpersonal situation that
entails certain consequences.
CONCLUSION
Speech verbs play a crucial role in language use by
allowing speakers to convey intentions, emotions, and
social actions through linguistic expressions. Among
speech verbs, performative verbs stand out for their
ability to not only describe actions but also enact those
International Journal of Pedagogics
111
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
actions in the speech act itself. This unique
characteristic of performative verbs has garnered
interest
from
linguists,
psychologists,
and
communication scholars seeking to understand the
complexities of human interaction. To investigate the
performative characteristics of speech verbs, we
conducted a comprehensive analysis of linguistic
corpora to identify and categorize performative verbs.
We employed both qualitative methods, such as
discourse analysis, and quantitative methods, such as
frequency counts and distributional analyses, to
explore the functions and pragmatic implications of
performative verbs in natural language interactions.
Our analysis revealed a diverse range of performative
verbs used in everyday communication, including
"promise," "apologize," "declare," and "warn." These
verbs were found to play a significant role in shaping
social realities and relationships by conveying speaker
intentions and eliciting listener responses. The context
in which performative verbs are used was identified as
a crucial factor in interpreting their pragmatic functions
and social implications. The findings of our study
underscore the performative nature of speech verbs
and their impact on communication dynamics.
Performative verbs serve as strategic tools for
conveying intentions, emotions, and social roles in
discourse, highlighting the intricate relationship
between language use and social interaction.
Understanding the performative characteristics of
speech verbs is essential for effective communication
and navigating complex social situations. Our scientific
exploration of speech verbs and their performative
characteristics sheds light on the intricate ways in
which
language
shapes
social
realities
and
relationships.
By
recognizing
the
power
of
performative verbs in communication, individuals can
enhance their communicative skills and foster more
meaningful interactions. Future research should
continue to investigate the role of performative verbs
in cross-cultural communication and explore how
different linguistic communities utilize performative
verbs to achieve communicative goals. Ultimately, a
deeper understanding of performative verbs can enrich
our knowledge of human communication and
contribute
to
more
effective
interpersonal
interactions. In the course of the work done, it was
established that the semantically verbs SAY, TELL,
SPEAK and TALK carry within themselves one integral
attribute “speaking”, while the remaining linguistic
units have differential attributes in their semantic
meaning. In this regard, the verbs SAY, TELL, SPEAK and
TALK are assigned to the nuclear zone, and their
synonyms are assigned to the peripheral zones.
Due to the fact that these cognitive characteristics
were identified in accordance with the semantic
components of the synonymous series of the verbs
SAY, TELL, SPEAK and TALK separately, the
interpretation of these characteristics leads to the
construction of a general model of the language
representation of the SPEAKING concept. So, we can
distinguish the main four groups of methods of
objectification of the investigated verb, namely:
1. "The manner of speaking." Speech is characterized as
a sound image endowed with certain qualities. We can
include physical characteristics: tonality (high, low),
volume (loud, quiet), vocal characteristics (loudness,
hoarseness, whispering), tempo (fast, slow), quantity (a
lot, a little), and articulation (with defects, distinctly,
inaudible).
2. "Form of presentation." It indicates the form of
expression of thoughts, for example: describe -
describe, inform - inform, manifest - publish, proclaim,
declare - declare, mention - mention. This group can
also include linguistic units that have a negative
emotional connotation in their meaning: patter -
chatter, gabble - crack, palaver - flatter.
3. “Attitude”. The process of speaking in
itself involves a type of social relationship. This aspect
characterizes the speaker’s speech activity as a
relationship between people, based on the common
interests of the participants in the situation: chat -
chatting, converse - maintaining relationships, discuss -
discussing, instruct - instructing, request - asking, give
away - revealing, confess - recognizing.
4. "Target installation." In this aspect, the
communicative purpose of the utterance is defined.
Here we can distinguish such signs as “speaking as a
hint”, “speaking as a conviction”, “
speaking as an
advice”, “speaking as an assessment”, “speaking as
spending time” and “speaking as doing harm”:
attest - to testify, depose - to assure, warrant - to warn,
insinuate - to hint, introduce - to represent, propose -
to offer, dictate - to dictate, imply - to imply.
Thus, the SPEAKING CONCEPT in modern English can be
objectified at the language level in the most
generalized form, stylistically neutralized by the verbs
SAY, TELL, SPEAK and TALK, which we define as
prototypes of the concept under study. Their semantic
components enter the core of the nominative field.
Private, differential components expressed by their
synonyms are also distinguished. These language units
are included in the peripheral zones of the analyzed
field. The field organization of the concept reflects the
hierarchy of individual cognitive attributes. The division
of the concept content into the core and periphery is
carried out according to the criterion of the intensity of
cognitive attributes.
International Journal of Pedagogics
112
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
As a result of the research o
f the concept “SPEAKING”,
it was found that this concept conveys the following
features:
“manner
of
speaking”,
“form
of
presentation”, “attitude”, “target setting”.
REFERENCES
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the
Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in
Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Heritage, J., & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice:
Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in
interactions between health visitors and first-time
mothers. In P.J. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work:
Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 359-417).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Вендлер З. Иллокутивное самоубийство // Новое в
зарубежной лингвитсике. Вып. 16. М., 1985.
Падучева Е.В. Вид и время перформативного
глагола.// Логический анализ языка: Язык речевых
действий. М.,
1994.
Ross J.R. On Declarative Sentences. // Readings in
English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Moss:
Ginn,1970.
Апресян Ю.Д. Глаголы моментального действия и
перформативы в русском языке. // Русистика
сегодня. Язык: система и ее функционирование. М.,
1988.
Богданов
В.В.
Семантико
-
синтаксическая
организация предложения. Л., 1977.
Ширяев Е.Н. Глаголы речи, восприятия и мысли в
роли
разговорных
модальных
средств//
Сокровенные смыслы: Слово. Текст. Культура. М.,
2004.
Арутюнова Н.Д. Язык и мир человека. М
., 1999.
Синтагматические
характеристики
английских
глаголов говорения //Прагматика форм речевого
общения: Межвузовский сборник научных статей.
Под ред. А.И. Волокитиной.
-
Самара: Изд
-
во
"Самарский университет", 2001.
-
С. 144
-149.
Глаголы говорения
-
динамическая модель
языковой картины мира: опыт когнитивной
интерпретации: Монография / С.М.Антонова.
-
Гродно: ГрГУ, 2003.
-
519 с.
Михайлова
Л.М.
Глагольные
способы
репрезентации
концепта
«говорение»
в
современном английском языке. Автореферат.
-
Ростов
-
на
-
Дону –
2009
Воронков С.А. Прагматический аспект английских
глаголов говорения speak, talk, say, tell // Науч. зап.
Сиб. акад. гос. службы. –
Новосибирск, 2000. –
Т. 3.
–
С. 304–
321.
